Account Stated Under Florida Law
This article discusses the cause for action for account stated under Florida law. “An account stated has been defined to be ‘an agreement between persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount due in respect of such transactions, and promising payment.’” Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A., N.A., 37 So. 3d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Martyn v. Amold, 18 So. 791, 793 (Fla. 1895).
At the outset, “[a]ctions for an account stated and an open account are two distinct causes of actions requiring different burdens of proof.” S. Motor Co. of Dade County v. Accountable Constr. Co., 707 So. 2d 909, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The cause of action for open account was the subject of a prior article. Unlike a cause of action for an open account, “[a]n itemized statement of underlying charges is not required to establish a claim for an account stated.” Farley, 37 So. 3d at 937 (emphasis added).
“Proof of an account stated requires an express or implied agreement between the parties that a specified balance is correct and due and an express or implied promise to pay this balance.” Farley, 37 So. 3d at 937. “The cause of action is often based upon an implied promise.” Id. “Thus, when an account statement has ‘been rendered to and received by one who made no objection thereto within a reasonable time,’ a prima facie case for the correctness of the account and the liability of the debtor has been made.” Id. (quoting Daytona Bridge Co. v. Bond, 36 So. 445, 447 (Fla. 1904)).
“An objection ‘impliedly admit[s] the correctness of the amounts on the account stated’ when it does not challenge them.” Farley, 37 So. 3d at 937 (quotation omitted). “A debtor may overcome a prima facie case of an account stated by ‘meeting the burden of proving fraud, mistake[,] or error’ in the account.” Id. (quotation omitted).
“The cause of action for an account stated is based on ‘the agreement of the parties to pay the amount due upon the accounting, and not any written instrument.’” Farley, 37 So. 3d at 937–38 (quoting Whittington v. Stanton, 63 Fla. 311, 58 So. 489, 491 (Fla. 1912)). “Thus, ‘it is not necessary, in order to support a count upon account stated, to show the nature of the original debt, or to prove the specific items constituting the account.’” Id. (quoting Daytona Bridge Co., 36 So. at 447).